> We are not committing code which has not been tested, but the reality > is that until someone steps up to the plate with an exhaustive automated > testsuite, the tests will never be as complete as real users using
Automated testsuite is not an answer. It's just another thing that waits for being buggy. Answer is writing things BugFree(TM). A proof that it's possible: 1) A single bit is BugFree(TM). If it should be 0, it can be 0, if it should be 1, it can be 1. Similarly, for other elementary systems that are not a bit, similar thing is obvious. 2) If the systems consists of 2 components A and B and A has interface a and B has interface b, a=b, and A and B are both BugFree(TM), then it's easy to see that A+B is BugFree(TM) too. 3) Arbitrarily large system can be built using these rules. 4) equality a=b is tested using interface descriptions that are called "specification" So when we now know that arbitrarily large system can be built BugFree(TM), we can write things BugFree(TM). Then the whole problem with bugs is just a bug in implementation of this system, which will occur far less often than a generic bug when we write things without keeping these facts in mind. > the tool for hours. > > > Bugs are not normal, as well as stealing or killing people is not > > normal. Bugs are evil. The fact that things like Bugzilla exist > > doesn't make bugs any more normal, as well as existence of punishment > > doesn't make stealing or killing any more normal. > > by your argument, we should evidently get rid of bug tracking systems > as well as a legal system for dealing with criminals?? No. You can't control a criminal. Criminal is controlled by his own free will. However, you can control your own behaviour to prevent bugs in code. Cl<
